studiomusic
About
- Username
- studiomusic
- Joined
- Visits
- 130
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 392
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 658
Reactions
-
Facebook beats out Apple with exclusive AR glasses display buy
lkrupp said:Love the headline... Apple Fails Again!lolIf Apple doesn't watch it's self, Facebook might become a bigger social networking company than Apple! Oh noes!/s
-
How to make video conferences more bearable for you & other participants
And don't take your laptop into the bathroom with you!
-
Apple ordered to pay $838M for infringing Caltech Wi-Fi patents
If Apple has to pay, then they could sue Qualcomm for supplying the infringing chips and get their fine money back. Unless there's a no-fault cause in there somewhere.
-
Neil Young rails against 'Fisher-Price' MacBook Pro audio for music production
Happy_Noodle_Boy said:Mike Wuerthele said:
The article is linked in the story, has been since publication. The fact that he's talking about the DAC is addressed in the piece.Happy_Noodle_Boy said:AI should, at a minimum, be embarrassed by this article and honestly should retract it.The quotes in question are taken with an interview with the verge. AI, inexperience, didn’t link to the source which is just sketchy. Further, the quotes are taken out of context and do not accurately portray Neil Young’s comments. The complaint he has with the MBP is the built in audio out. He doesn’t think it is good enough for music production and he is 100% correct.If you read the article he actually defends music writing and production in the MBP from a jackass interviewer that keeps trying to get him to trash it as a solution.
Edit - I will make it a bit larger, so it's more apparent.
Lastly you link to an article about Billie Eilish having her album produced in a bedroom in some attempt to prove Neil Young wrong. The irony being that the article lists the equipment used which include an external DAC and reference monitors..... So, the article actually backs Young's point. The built in DAC and audio output are not good enough for music production. I mean that is literally what he was saying; "So you have to use an external DAC and do a bunch of stuff to make up for the problems that the MacBook Pro has"
A person could make a reasonable argument that he is expecting way too much out of a MBP or that his language is needlessly hyperbolic. Totally legitimate points but you didn't.
Sorry, this article is just sloppy at best. Based on the comments on the article it's pretty clear readers didn't get that he was talking about sound out.Then he is even more incompetent than before pointing that out.You know I'm sure that you can export an audio file, even in 24 bit 96kHz, without having to use the Mac's DA converter. Then you can send it anywhere... even a nice Fisher-Price music player like he was involved in.There is no need to use the Mac's DA circuitry at all!And if you want to use external speakers to monitor while you're tracking or mixing, then you just use an audio interface that is infinitesimally smaller than the speakers or the Mac... IF you NEED to have incredibly perfect playback (which, unless you are in a sound-treated place like a studio wouldn't matter much).I wouldn't use ANY built-in audio converters to record or mix any audio I plan on using on a track - Mac or PC.
-
Neil Young rails against 'Fisher-Price' MacBook Pro audio for music production
eddnav said:Lmao, imagine using Grammy awards as any defence for Apples garbage hardware. Do you realise how stupid this article sounds?Spelling errors aside (lmao)... Yes, Grammy awards do represent a minimum quality of music recording and production. They are voted on by professionals in the industry (myself included) who actually do care about how things sound.Neil, and you I suppose, don't have a clue about how any computer, let alone a Mac, is actually used in audio production.
